The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler abuse of power rebounds on Democrats > Comments

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler abuse of power rebounds on Democrats : Comments

By David Singer, published 10/2/2020

Their partisan political strategy has cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars as the Democrats trashed long-established cardinal legal principles to pursue the President.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
.

(Continued …)

.

There was no such declaration on the part of the Democrats in relation to the House inquiry vote – nor in relation to the up-coming Senate vote.

However, it’s not difficult to imagine that the Democrat vote in the House (where they hold a comfortable majority), in favour of indictment, was, perhaps, partly in reaction to the fact that Trump withheld documentary evidence and prevented key witnesses from testifying at the inquiry. This could only have had a negative effect on even the most impartial of voters.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Shadow Minister, but I honestly don’t think there is any tangible evidence of partisan voting by the Democrats – which, of course, does not mean that there wasn’t any, but simply that there is no evidence of it. »

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 15 February 2020 9:06:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear David,

.

You wrote :

1. « Trump was charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him of both charges. Game set and match. Get on with life and accept the verdict. It might be galling to you that the President was acquitted but any legal system can only work successfully if the verdict of the court is accepted until it is overruled. »

I have no problem with that, David, any more than I have with the senate acquitting Bill Clinton. I think both men were “saved” by what were perceived as favourable results obtained during their tenure in office up to the date of their trial.

A major difference between the two trials, however, was that during the 105th Congress, under President Bill Clinton's administration, both chambers of Congress (House and Senate) had a Republican majority. Whereas, during the 116th Congress under President Donald Trump’s administration, the House had a Democrat majority and the Senate a Republican majority.

As I indicated in my previous post to you, David, the acquittal of Bill Clinton was a bipartisan decision, whereas the acquittal of Donald Trump was, on the contrary, a partisan vote – with only one Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, braking with his party and voting in favour of the first article of impeachment (abuse of power), supporting the effort to remove the president.
.

2. « He [Donald Trump] is also entitled to hear you affirming that he enjoys the continuing presumption of innocence until proved guilty »

That, normally, would be my natural reaction, as you rightly suggest. However, as I pointed out in my previous post to you, in deciding to acquit Bill Clinton in a bipartisan decision, the US Senate obviously considered that the nature of the initial “wrongdoings”, the proximate cause, that triggered Clinton’s impeachment trial, were not sufficiently important to justify removing him from office.

Clinton’s declaration under oath was proven to be false by a DNA test. Perjury had clearly been established. Therefore, presumption of innocence does not follow from Senate acquittal.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 15 February 2020 10:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo

With regards partisanship:

Democrats had been calling for impeachment from the time Trump was elected,
-100% of those prosecuting the impeachment were democrats,
-100% of those defending the president were republicans,
-100% of the republicans voted against impeachment,
-100% of those that voted for impeachment were democrats,

I think that you would struggle to find a more clear cut case of partisanship.

Proof that the entire process was chronically biased included:

-Secret hearings were held that excluded republicans defenders, from which anti Trump snippets were leaked,
-Not one witness or document had first hand evidence directly linking Trump's decision to halt aid with Ukraines help with investigating Biden,

If the impeachment hearing was a court of law both articles would have been thrown out.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 16 February 2020 7:51:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You keep going back over old ground. I already replied twice to your insistent claim that the Trump enquiry by the House of Representatives was a purely partisan affair.

Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t. Instead of simply repeating your initial claim over and over again, I suggest you read, or re-read, my previous post to you on this thread and indicate the specific points on which you disagree and explain why you disagree. That way we might be able to make some progress together.

Otherwise, I think it is pointless to continue this discussion. We are just turning around in circles.

As for the last two points on your post ...

« - Secret hearings were held that excluded republicans defenders, from which anti Trump snippets were leaked,

- Not one witness or document had first hand evidence directly linking Trump's decision to halt aid with Ukraines help with investigating Biden » :

... it has been largely reported that :

1. 48 House Republicans were invited to participate in all 17 House Impeachment Inquiry Depositions — many chose not to :

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/democracy/news/2020/01/24/176422/48-house-republicans-invited-participate-17-house-impeachment-inquiry-depositions-many-chose-not/

2. Trump withheld documentary evidence and prevented key witnesses from testifying at the inquiry :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck-9NGWuTBI

It's surprising that you ignore these two facts - or do you simply discount them because they are unfavourable to your cause ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 17 February 2020 1:16:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

Firstly, I agree that debating whether the issue of partisanship is pointless when patently self evident to all but the most self deluded.

Secondly with regards the depositions, it is the right of the defendants team to choose who attends, not the whim of the prosecution. The "stunt" as you refer to it was when the president's legal representatives tried to attend one of these depositions and Schiff etc scuttled off demonstrating the inherent bias of these events.

Finally, in any trial civil or criminal, a defendant is entitled to challenge subpoenas for material or witnesses that might reveal legally privileged information. The house democrats had the option to pursue this through the courts but chose not to thus relinquishing their claim to the documents or information.

Had the democrats at least attempted to follow due process they might not have antagonised the republican congressmen, and if they had taken the time to contest Trump's claims of legal privilege, they might have obtained some or all of the documents and witnesses they wanted.

Instead they ran a kangaroo court and presented impeachment articles to senate based on flimsy evidence and expected the senate to do the work that they failed to do with inevitable results.

The biggest loser is Biden whose support has tanked, and Sanders wins the nomination, Trump's election is vastly more likely.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 17 February 2020 3:18:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« … I agree that debating whether the issue of partisanship is pointless when patently self evident to all but the most self deluded »
.

Appearances can be misleading, Shadow Minister. Until the fifth century BC it was “self-evident to all but the most self-deluded” that the earth was flat. Pythagoras and Parmenides were the first to perceive it as it really is : spherical. Admittedly, that required a special effort of observation, analysis and perspicacity – of which not everybody was capable.

In my view, a major flaw in the US impeachment system, brought to light by both the Clinton and Trump trials, is the automaticity of the removal from office of the president if he is found guilty. If verdict and sentence could be decided separately, each on its own merits, as in the criminal justice system, Clinton and Trump could possibly have been found guilty without necessarily having to be removed from office.

In deciding to acquit Bill Clinton in a bipartisan decision, the US Senate obviously considered that the fact that he had committed perjury was not sufficiently important to justify removing him from office. To avoid removal, the senate declared him innocent of the perjury of which he was guilty.

Similarly, for Donald Trump, many Republican senators admitted that they considered his actions were “inappropriate” but not bad enough to warrant his removal from office. Their vote in the senate may have been different if a guilty verdict did not automatically result in his removal from office.

Even one of Trump’s lawyers, Robert Ray, declared when addressing the senate :

« I know that many of you may come to conclude, or may have already concluded, that the call was less than perfect », referring to the president’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president – and which he (Trump) had repeatedly described as “perfect”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 18 February 2020 2:10:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy